Review

Review Summary: Even if Blur tried to set themselves apart from their peers with this album, there's not much to like.

Blur...yet another one of those bands that I stay away from like the plague. I was never a fan of the britpop revolution of the 1990s, and when Song 2 began to get played on the radio worldwide, it only led to more britpop hate. Sure, Blur wasn’t really that britpop anymore, but they were part of that movement, and they were one of those bands that I refused to listen to. The lead singer’s voice to me was about as irritating and distressed as if you were taking Billy Corgan from Smashing Pumpkins and sticking a knife in his vocal box. The mindless screams of “Woo Hoo!” seemed completely elementary. The guitar work was unbearably repetitive. God, I get just irritated at the thought of talking about Blur.

But, see, the other day, I was quite bored, and took my girlfriend’s copy of Blur’s self-titled, and well, listened to it. Even though this was definitely a biased and forced listen, I took the album, and put it in my CD player...and well, wasn’t really surprised with what I heard. More of the mindless anthems were littered about this record, mixed with strange electronica tinkerings that effectively shut the door for my mind and opinions on this release. I wasn’t expecting much, and that’s exactly what I got with Blur's self-titled.

If I refer to this album as god awful, that’s only beginning to sum it up. This is just not good music, Blur has managed to pull over the biggest sham over music listeners all across the country with one simple song, Song 2. What a mindless, irritating, repetitive, and tough listen to call your lead single. There’s no point to the album either, it’s just a random mishmash of pointless sounds, coerced lyrics, and an overwhelming feel of sub par music. The guitar work is tight and crisp for most of the songs and does well in setting a nice backdrop, but at times it’s messy and all over the place. Albarn’s vocal performances are moronic and about as enjoyable as watching paint dry because his accent doesn't fuse well with the way he overprounces the wrong syllables. But the biggest issue with Blur’s self-titled is the identity crisis the album seems stuck in, as some tracks are hard-edged slow-burning rockers, some are pop anthems, and some are just plain weird techno trances. The tracks show no sign of maturing with the album as it goes on either, as the tracks will go from insane rocker to techno pop anthem with no hesitation at all. It just seems rather half-cooked and immature.

Look, I realize Blur was trying to set themselves apart with this album, but it didn’t work. Even though Blur showed signs of talent, the same feel of bad execution, poor production and mixing methods comes through in waves and harms a potentially earth-shattering band. There’s some signs of excellent guitar work, there’s some signs of good vocal performances, and there’s some signs of excellent techno-influences, but as time would prove Blur never really had what it took to put all these parts together, which would ultimately lead to Blur’s downfall.

So while sounding biased by my hate for the britpop bands of the 1990s, I’d just like to clear the air that well, Blur is a band I was willing to give a chance, but the misfirings of this album, their overall poor sound of their early albums, and the awkward experimentations of their later albums would keep me as far away from Blur as possible. This was Blur’s defining album that would influence their future and their fans, but unfortunately for this band from England, that wasn’t enough to gain me over as a fan, and ultimately they ended up putting out this desperate, rushed, misfired, and overly dramatic release that just wasn’t up to par.

You use the words mindless and repetitive way too much. Not that bad a review though.
I don't really care all that much about Blur, but they did have that one awesome single off Think Tank, but I can't even remember the title of it anymore.

The first two paragraphs make it seem like you're only reviewing this becuase you have nothing better to do.
You don't really start talking about the music until the forth paragraph, and you don't even really provide much insight into the music. If I had never heard this band before, how would I know what they sound like?

There’s no point to the album either, it’s just a random mishmash of pointless sounds, coerced lyrics, and an overwhelming feel of sub par music.

Most of your descriptions come out like this.

Look, I realize Blur was trying to set themselves apart with this album, but it didn’t work. Even though Blur showed signs of talent, the same feel of bad execution, poor production and mixing methods comes through in waves and harms a potentially earth-shattering band. There’s some signs of excellent guitar work, there’s some signs of good vocal performances, and there’s some signs of excellent techno-influences, but as time would prove Blur never really had what it took to put all these parts together, which would ultimately lead to Blur’s downfall.

"excellent techno-influences" is about all I can say about what they sound like from this.

But the biggest issue with Blur’s self-titled is the identity crisis the album seems stuck in, as some tracks are hard-edged slow-burning rockers, some are pop anthems, and some are just plain weird techno trances.

Specifically?

Heavy britpop, electronic, poppy...etc. etc.

Telling me this in the comment section without broadening it in the review doesn't strengthen your review but just proves how little your delved in it there.

You're doing better, but basically what Chan said. You talk about a lot of how and why it's bad, but not necessarily how the sound comes out because of it.

edit: What everyone else is saying is true. I've never heard anything by Blur aside from Song 2, and I still have no idea what this would sound like, even after reading your review. If I actually had a life, I would be disappointed that I just wasted 5 minutes of my life reading about how your girlfriend listens to music you don't like.This Message Edited On 09.30.07

I don't think your review is as bad as some of the others are making it out to be, but I think it would make the review better if you wern't so biased sounding. You can still write a negative review without jabbering on about how much you can't stand the music, just say what it is exactly that you don't like about it.

Absolutely terrible review. You don't provide specific examples for any of the songs, except Song 2, which, if you read information on it, was a joke at the American alternative bands of the time. It was a spoof, intentionally splattered with "woo-hoos" and only for 2 minutes long.

You failed to mention the Beatles-esque brilliance of "Beetlebum", the alt-country tinged "Country Sad Ballad Man," or even the excellent "Death of a Party."

You even said it yourself. You wrote the review biased. Please don't write reviews for something just because you are "bored." Because they come out poor and half-arsed like this one.